The Death of the Bush Doctrine

By Caroline Glick
The Jewish Press, November 30, 2007

At Annapolis this week, President George W. Bush buried his doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was based upon a simple statement the president made in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 jihadist attacks on America.

    “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime,”

Bush announced to the roaring applause of both houses of Congress.

The message emanating from Annapolis was exactly the opposite. What the administration effectively said was, “The more you support terrorists, the harder the U.S. will work to appease you.” The price the U.S. and its allies who are fighting terrorism will pay for this abandonment of strategic wisdom will be steep. Moreover, Israel won’t be the only state to suffer. Much attention has reasonably been paid to the threat the effects of Annapolis conference pose to Israel’s long-term security. The conference was based on a diplomatic framework unprecedented in its hostility to basic Israeli security concerns.

In 2004, the Bush administration forced Israel to accept its road map plan for Middle East peacemaking. The road map, conceived and written by radical Israeli leftists and their European supporters, was itself a horribly anti-Israel document. It essentially committed Israel to a diplomatic framework that denies Israel’s legitimate claims to its heartland — Judea and Samaria — and to its capital city, Jerusalem. The document’s only redeeming factor was its stipulation that before any negotiations could begin between Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinians first had to end their involvement and support for terrorism and to destroy the terrorist organizations operating in the Palestinian Authority.

The Annapolis conference and the new U.S. policy it reflects reject that pre-condition. The new policy is based on the proposition that Israel should commit itself to massive and strategically suicidal territorial withdrawals even before the Palestinians take any action against terrorism. As a result, it traps Israel in an untenable position where its security needs are neglected in the interest of strengthening the terror-supporting Palestinians.

In due course, Israel will pay a heavy price for the stupidity and irresponsibility of the Olmert-Livnet-Barak government in agreeing to the Annapolis formula for Israeli concession-making to the Palestinians. However, Israel will not actually be the conference’s most immediate victim. Lebanon and Iraq share that dubious distinction.

Many have touted the Bush administration’s new obsession with Palestinian statehood as a ploy to garner Arab support for its efforts to check Iranian regional influence and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. By giving in to the Arab world’s persistent demands to put the screws on Israel in an effort to establish a Palestinian state, it is argued, the U.S. was working to shore up its credibility in the Arab world.

Yet, perversely, the opposite has occurred. Far from gaining influence, the U.S. push for Arab participation at Annapolis placed Washington in the role of supplicant. Rather than thank the U.S. for its efforts, the Arabs tried to distance themselves from Washington. As Khaled Abu Toameh wrote in the Jerusalem Post last Friday, the Arabs’ “major concern is that the Bush administration was planning to exploit the conference to create a U.S.-led coalition to confront Iran, Hamas and Hizbulla.”

In a bid to placate that Arab fear, the Bush administration went out of its way to appease Iran ahead of the conference. That is, far from working to weaken Iran, the U.S. attempt to appease the Arabs by holding the anti-Israel conference, has led directly to Iran’s empowerment. The most glaring example of this is the U.S.’s decision to invite Iran’s underling, Syria to the conference. Syria – with its strategic alliance with Iran, its illicit nuclear program that the Israel Air Force destroyed in September, its sponsorship of the insurgency in Iraq, and its bid to overthrow the democratically elected pro-Western Siniora government in Lebanon in a bid to reassert its control over its neighbor — epitomizes everything the Bush doctrine was supposed to be opposed to. Yet, to secure Saudi support for the conference, the U.S. ignored Syrian hostility and invited Bashar Assad to send an emissary to Annapolis.

Syria’s presence at Annapolis is ripe with consequences for Lebanese independence and democracy. As part of its bid to overthrow the Siniora government, through Hizbullah, the Syrians and Iranians have prevented the Lebanese parliament from holding elections for the country’s president. In accordance with the Lebanese constitution, Syria’s puppet President Emil Lahoud left office at the end of his term last Saturday and due to Syrian, Hizbullah and Iranian interference, no elections could be held in parliament to elect his successor.

Nabi Berri, the Hizbullah and Syrian-aligned speaker of the Lebanese parliament announced early in the week that the parliament would convene on Friday, November 30 in an attempt to elect a successor. The fact that the elections were set to take place after Annapolis was a clear sign that the Syrian presence there was part of a blackmail attempt to force the U.S. to give the Assad regime legitimacy in exchange for a vague — and likely unreliable — Syrian promise to allow elections to occur on Friday.

Given that Syria cares more about re-establishing its control over Lebanon than about maintaining good relations with the U.S., it is safe to assume that they will renege on their presumed pledge to enable the elections to take place. Moreover, they will do this after being showered with attention and legitimacy by the Bush administration at Annapolis. What could be more pleasing to Teheran?

Over the weekend, Iranian-backed terrorists carried out a massive terror attack in Baghdad. And yet, rather than point a finger at Tehran, U.S. spokesmen said they didn’t know whether the fact that the terrorists used Iranian ordnance in carrying out their attack meant the Iranian government still supports terrorism. While some 600 Iraqi Shi’ite leaders signed a petition demanding that Iran end its sponsorship for the insurgency in their country, the U.S. has dropped its confrontational stance and has sought to present Tehran as cooperative and friendly even as its militias sow violence and attack U.S. servicemen.

Ahead of the Annapolis conference, Washington announced it was renewing its direct negotiations with Iran on Iraq’s future. The newest round of talks, scheduled to begin in the coming days between Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, are a clear indication that the U.S. has decided to appease the mullahs.

Just last month the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petreaus, said Qomi was a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Kuds Brigade, which the administration labeled a terrorist organization. In his testimony before Congress in September, Crocker argued against holding further talks with the Iranians, claiming that the three previous rounds had led to a radicalization of Iran’s positions and actions in Iraq.

Although the Annapolis conference was pooh-poohed by many as nothing more than a sound and light show, the fact is that it was an event of enormous significance. It was the funeral for the Bush Doctrine. At Annapolis, the administration embraced appeasement as a strategy. All committed to the defeat of jihad should be crying bloody murder.

December 4, 2007 | 9 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. Shalom Yamit 82,

    That was an excellent link! I’ve known about the presented material but the link was a well-writen, to the point, focus.

    It’s been over a half century since I ever heard again of = Knights of Pythias =. I have a ring from K of P here.

    Of course they never heard of FDR – only the contemporary – and bankrupt – programs.

    The linked article was especially interesting to me from another aspect also. I’ve got some material on the Alyia Bet ship program here. Once wrote something on the United Fruit Company ships used in the program.

    Having just read the link and note that no comments were received here when you mentioned Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek was a spy for th Brit’s MI5 intel agency, had been told this and never heard corroboration in any form, but reading in the link “we’ll have to get the spies out of our organization” … … … reminded me of Teddy Kollek.

    Now, as soon as the sun is overhead Greenwich, a beer won’t work. Will need one of those tumblers with a good mental health counselor like Jack Daniels.

    The link was depressing but I knew the material is truthful and well-established now.

    Kol tuv,

  2. If Jews remain largely devoted to the Democratic party, so be it and for historic reasons. There are then the neo-cons and they are Jews and GOPers…The Economist has a bright article on the Bush failure at Annapolis. He said nothing of substance but that talks should be on-going, and the result, Abbas went back and gotlaughed at by Hamas and Hezbollah, who said he would return with nothing. Bush failed to show leadership. Did not inist upon a gussted settlement that would be in line with what America had in mind. He was, said the article, his usual lackluster self.–and that from a conservative paper.
    But wait! Here is now what Abbas wants from the world,8599,1691074,00.html

  3. South most of the Jews alive today probably never heard of FDR! Their blind loyalty to the Democrats, goes beyond what was once a foolish(hindsight )view that FDR was god and a Democrat. The Jews do’t even consider themselves a minority anymore. They like our lefties have adopted the Great Unwashed National Narratives. America is to be blamed for all that is wrong with the world. These were the anti establishment types of the sixties that have become the establishment today. Their Big Problem is that none of them were ever punched in the mouth!

    Here is something for all of you to get your teeth into when trying to understand American Jews then and today:

  4. Shalom Keelie,

    There is much interference in Israeli matters because US Jewry is openly enslaved to the FDR public sector programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

    It is not by accident that “Jewish” organizations presented policy positions on everything from Supreme Court nominees to the sugar tariff to birth control funding but not the bankrupt Social Security program(s).

    More than 2% of America’s Jewish population lives in sunny and warm Florida and this is not because of market economics. America’s political activists know this – and why – and they have resentments. The same (or similiar) matters occurred in France after WWI.

    Kol tuv,

  5. Shalom Yamit 82,

    Bush 43 is a Rockefeller Republican.

    Condo Rice is a figurehead only less her photos for Jet and Ebony Magazine.

    Do note that the world oil trade governs and this trade is still controlled by the US-UK economic echelon.

    Kol tuv,

  6. South:

    “An additional Arab state is not a critical matter re US strategic thinking.”

    But it is to Israeli thinking. So why so much interference in Israeli matters? The Israelis can hardly pee without US permission.

  7. The Bush Doctrine was never implemented , five min. after Bush announced it, it was filed away in file 13. It was really buried at the beginning of Bushes 2nd term when he cleaned house of most of those who advises and implemented the Bush Policies of Bushes first term. The apparent downgrading of Chaney and the elevation of Condi as primary foreign policy adviser has put us all in an almost untenable position. Then there was the Baker commission report who took the Saudi and Arab league plan and by Bushes acceptance became Official American policy from that point.


  8. Caroline Glick is all wrong.

    The “Bush Doctrine” must be translated like the “Truman doctrine”. The doctrines aren’t the actual words but the geopolitical significance.

    President Bush created the most powerful Vice President in US history. Here is VP Cheney’s “One Percent Doctrine”: Cheney declared that if there was even a 1% chance that terorists could get hold of weapons of mass destruction, the US should respond as if it was a certainty-regardless of the amount of evidence. Ron Suskind addressed this in his book “The One Percent Doctrine”.

    The messge from Annapolis was the same as the Bush Doctrine. The US will ensure its security as the scurity positions are determined by America’s bipartisan political echelon. Note that the new Congress has more Jewish members than Episcopalian members.

    Glick is not being candid when writing “forced Israel to accept its roadmap plan” along with “conceived by radican Israeli…”.

    The US is experiencing a declining role in the world traced to its budget deficits and related to the oil trade and economic challenges by China.

    An additional Arab state is not a critical mattr re US strategic thinking.

    Look closer at “radical Israeli…” and again note that the US Congress has a relatively large Jewish component.

    Stop blaming Annapolis and the barbarians.

    Look closer.

    Kol tuv,

Comments are closed.